whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Anthropic

Claude Fable 5

VS
Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.8

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, Claude Fable 5 is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 11.1% higher on coding benchmarks. However, this accuracy premium comes with a cost overhead: Claude Opus 4.8 is 2.0x cheaper to run. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, Claude Opus 4.8 offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of Claude Fable 5 fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

Claude Fable 5

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+11.1%)
80.3%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.5%)
94.1%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$20.00Input: $10.00 | Output: $50.00
Speed1.3x faster
60.3 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Model Specs

Claude Opus 4.8

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
69.2%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93.6%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)2.0x cheaper
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00
Speed
48.1 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper than Claude Fable 5. Claude Opus 4.8 has a blended cost of $10.00/1M tokens, which is about 2.0x cheaper than Claude Fable 5 at $20.00/1M tokens.

Claude Fable 5 is faster than Claude Opus 4.8. Claude Fable 5 generates 60.3 tokens per second (tps) compared to Claude Opus 4.8 which generates 48.1 tokens per second.

Claude Fable 5 is better for coding tasks. It scores 80.3% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to Claude Opus 4.8 which scores 69.2%.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard